Benji York wrote: > If I, as the user of the interface, have something I want to > pass in that doesn't match I it to the appropriate interface the burden > is on me to create something that matches expectations. People do that > all the time today without an interface/adaption framework, they just > write code that takes one thing and builds another.
Yes, and that seems like a fine way of doing it. You know what you've got and where you want to get to, so there's no need to look anything up in a registry. > Instead of building an API for looking up security descriptions from a > user name that I have to pull out of the user object, I could instead > register and adapter from IUser to ISecurityInfo, I don't see how this is better than just calling a get_security_info_from_user() function, the implementation of which can be changed if necessary without affecting any code that calls it. > Looping over the form fields and adapting each to IWidget and getting > back a TextField for a string, CheckBox for a boolean, etc. Here I don't see how it's better than passing in a dict mapping field classes to widget classes. Worse, in fact, since it would seem to restrict you to a single global mapping for all forms. > once you have the simple tools of adaptation in mind > ... you start to recognize places where they help > you solve problems in better ways. Or they lead you into an everything-is-a-nail mode of thinking, which is what the above seem to be to me, to some extent. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
